On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 17:56, BN wrote: > Ok, why do we *NEED* a mission statement? > We don't. Obviously the LUG has existed for quite some time without such a statement. However, until such a statement is drafted, it is pointless to discuss the purpose, or non-purpose, of the group (unless, of course, such discussion is directed toward the drafting of such a statement). Secondly, the drafting of a mission statement would lay to rest these kinds of debates. All one needs to do is point the "offender" to the mission statement and say something like "Thank you for your suggestion, but it doesn't really lie within the scope of the LUG's mission." End of story. > Who is requiring us to have a mission statement? > > Oh how I long for the discussions about which VM to use in the Linux > kernel..... > ??? A simple statement like "to help people learn about using and configuring linux" would qualify as a mission statement. > > -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Davis > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:30 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Installfest stuff > > Well, okay, here's my point: > 1) Mr. Cole states that the TCLUG has no statement of mission > 2) Mr. Underground responds by what *he* thinks TCLUG is, which is > either anarchic or democratic (he doesn't specify which). Mr. > Underground does not refute the assertion that TCLUG has no mission. In > fact, certain statements seem to indicate his agreement (i.e., he > doesn't *want* a mission statement as he feels that the mere existence > of such a thing inherently lends itself to a hierarchial structure -- > Mr. Underground, feel free to correct my interpretation of your > statements on this matter). > 3) In the process of expressing his opinions, Mr. Underground made > (slightly) veiled attacks on Mr. Cole. He also expessed that TCLUG has > "morals". > 4) I asked two questions in the hopes that Mr. Underground would think > about what he was saying. How can a group that has no mission statement > have morals? Was it even incepted? To what purpose? If the group is > really "ruled" by its members, then shouldn't the members get together > to decide on a mission?